Prepared by Dr. C.J.A. Jephcott and P.A.Langston
Enfield Preservation Society, May 2003

Introduction

The presentation and management of the street scene in Church Street and The Town, at the heart of the Enfield Town conservation area, has fallen short of acceptable visual and functional standards The presentation now offered is an uncoordinated and confusing jumble of street furniture often in a poor state of repair. In effect the impression is of a town centre that is run down.

This is not a detailed audit, rather it attempts to scope and to demonstrate some of the problems by providing photographic examples and, where thought useful, making suggestions for improvement.

While the original intention had been to make a detailed audit in the event it was judged that the problems were too endemic for such detail to be productive. Two basic problems are apparent. First, just who is responsible for the overall street scene, the impression is of a lack of control and co-ordination. Second, much of the street furniture from railings to posts and signs appears to be due for replacement, repair or in need of a coat of paint.

More encouragingly, it is clear that a substantial improvement can be made at little effort and cost. Much of the improvements required are self evident and can be observed during a simple walk about. The selection of Church Street and The Town for a first audit gives the opportunity for a reasonably quick project attracting good publicity and wide spread public support.

The audit follows the observations and recommendations contained in the English Heritage publication ‘Streets for All’. Specific to the problems of the street scene in London ‘Streets for All’ gives a comprehensive view of best and worst practice and states that the first priority is to reduce clutter. It estimates that in some London streets up to 70% of street furniture is unnecessary, duplicated or redundant. Observation leaves little doubt that much the same applies in Enfield Town.

The eventual construction of Phase 2 of the shopping precinct is will bring visual problems that should be addressed at the design stage rather than after build completion. While similar problems in the street scene are replicated throughout Enfield it is Church Street and the Town, unique in importance to Enfield, where remedial action should start. In time the audit concept could be extended to other streets in the Enfield Town conservation area and beyond. It is desirable that the Council should establish and make known best practice standards for the street scene for Enfield for the future.

Intended to provide something of a wake up call this audit should be followed by a task force of Council and amenity group representatives to agree an actual programme of remedial work with time scales and costs .For Enfield Town to make the best impact on residents and visitors alike work is required to address the identified problems. The most useful suggestion for the task force is to try to see the scene as it were with fresh eyes and for the first time and to question the condition of our streets.

Initial Conclusions

There are a number of questions and issues that arise out of the audit, they include,

• It is not clear who has ultimate responsibility for the appearance and co-ordination of the street scene. The impression given is that separate departments follow their own perceived requirements without any overall control. In the case of Church Street and The Town, because of their central importance, that responsibility needs to have a strong architectural influence.
• The poor condition of so much of the street furniture leads to the suspicion that levels of routine maintenance are inadequate. As items are allowed to deteriorate so does the overall quality of the street scene. Much of the street furniture appears to be overdue for replacement.
• The impression is that installation of street furniture is a one way process, more is added while little or none is ever removed, As an example within only the past few weeks new installations have included CCTV warning signs and camera towers, drinking ban signs and a number of large hanging flower basket supports.
• Signs should be reviewed for need and relevance. Sign posts should be reduced in number and those posts retained should carry multiple signs. At a rough count Church Street and The Town contain over 100 separate signs, many of which are mounted one to a pole.
• Signs should be kept to the minimum size allowable and located, where possible, on buildings rather than on the pavement. Where possible signs should be located at eye level rather than elevated.
• Preferably street furniture should not be located on the front pavement edge, rather at the back edge of the pavement so as to minimise clutter and obstruction.
• Use of a uniform and single colour for posts is preferable, black would be preferable to black and white or to grey.
• Improve the open aspect of the street by removing railings, if necessary for pedestrian safety use raised kerbs. The general condition and placing of railings is poor and appears haphazard.
• Remove retail pavement advertising boards and other obstructions on the pavement.

With the dramatic visual improvement in the New River Loop and Chase Gardens it is a natural progression to continue the process of improvement round into Church Street and the Town. Enfield hopes to do even better in the Enfield In Bloom competition. To be successful is not just a matter of hanging flower baskets but also requires an appropriate setting in which the flowers are to be displayed.

There may be issues of regulation and policy that pre-empt some suggested remedial actions. Retention of identified worst practice features should be individually justified. The latest Statutory Instrument 2002 No.3113 ‘The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002’ will apply.

Essential is agreement with the Council on a remedial activities giving a programme of actions, time scales and costs As noted earlier much can be achieved for modest costs.

Hopefully, relevant local amenity groups will be involved in the future together with the Council to increase the benefit such partnership can bring.

Check list

The following check list is based on the principles contained in ’Streets for All’. The check list should be developed in the light of experience, informed comment and particular issues found to be relevant to Enfield. Not all these areas are investigated in this assessment.

1.0 Ground Surfaces

Check for:

1.1 Pavements

• Damage
• Appropriateness and uniformity

1.2 Highway surfaces and verges

• Obtrusive coloured surfaces across bus lanes, inappropriate in conservation areas
• Yellow and red lines, e.g. reduction from 100 mm wide to 50 mm wide

1.3 Ramps and tactile paving

• Integration with surrounding surfaces
• Appropriate colours

2.0 Street Furniture

Check for:

2.1 Clutter

• Identify superfluous and redundant items
• Identify unnecessary signs
• Identify where signs and signals can be co-located on columns, posts and buildings

2.2 Street name signs

• Signs to be placed on walls at rear of pavement where possible
• Cast signs to be in good painted condition

2.3 Traffic signs

• Over provision or repetition
• Reduction of size to lawful minimum
• Too much and unreadable information
• Coordinated colour matching
• Signage rationalisation

2.4 Traffic signals, crossings and guard rails

• Unobtrusive positioning and size of traffic signal control boxes
• Elimination or reduction of guard rails to a minimum
• Minimise traffic heads and repeater signals
• Integration of traffic signs and signals

2.5 Street lighting

• Fixed to buildings where possible
• Uniformity and appropriateness of design
• White light rather than orange where possible

2.6 Bollards

• Reduction to minimum necessary
• Appropriateness of design

Last updated 2004-03-10

Page 1 of 5

Next

Go to The Enfield Society home page